In re Howell

30 N.E.3d 694, 2015 Ind. LEXIS 387, 2015 WL 2213583
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 8, 2015
DocketNo. 51S00-1505-DI-251
StatusPublished

This text of 30 N.E.3d 694 (In re Howell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Howell, 30 N.E.3d 694, 2015 Ind. LEXIS 387, 2015 WL 2213583 (Ind. 2015).

Opinion

PUBLISHED ORDER ACCEPTING RESIGNATION AND CONCLUDING PROCEEDING

Respondent has tendered to this Court an affidavit of resignation from the bar of this State, pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(17), which requires an acknowledgement that there is presently pending an investigation into or a proceeding involving allegations of misconduct and that Respondent could not successfully defend himself if prosecuted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the resignation from the bar of this State tendered by Respondent is accepted, effective May 15, 2015. The Clerk of this Court is directed to record Respondent’s resignation on the Roll of Attorneys. Respondent shall fulfill all the applicable duties under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26)(d).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any attorney disciplinary proceedings pending against Respondent are hereby dismissed as moot because of Respondent’s resignation.

Respondent shall be ineligible to petition for reinstatement to the practice of law for five years from the date of this order. See Admis. Disc. R. 23(4)(a). If Respondent seeks reinstatement, the misconduct admitted in Respondent’s affidavit of resignation, as well as any other allegations of misconduct, may be addressed in the reinstatement process. Approval of a petition for reinstatement is discretionary and requires clear and convincing evidence of the petitioner’s remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice law. See Admis. Disc. R. 23(4)(b). Acceptance of Respondent’s resignation from the bar serves only to remove Respondent from the practice of law and does not relieve Respondent from any liability he might have for his misconduct under civil or criminal law.

All Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 N.E.3d 694, 2015 Ind. LEXIS 387, 2015 WL 2213583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-howell-ind-2015.